1-Copyright_AR_copyrt.qxd 10/31/12 10:30 AM Page i 2012 Report on Anti-Catholicism Copyright © 2013 ® Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America i The ACLU will celebrate its centennial on January 20, 2020. Always contentious, it has become the most influential civil liberties organization in the nation. Today it boasts more than 1.5 million members and employs nearly 300 staff attorneys; it also has thousands of volunteer lawyers. Its presence at the nation's elite law schools is testimony to its clout. Most important, it has won many historic cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Its reputation as a non-partisan organization that vigorously defends the free speech rights of all Americans, independent of their ideology or political leanings, is well known. However, it is a reputation that can be seriously challenged. Indeed, as I detailed in The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Transaction Press, 1985), it would be more accurate to say that the Union is the legal arm of the liberal-left. Its reputation as a force for freedom can also be seriously challenged. As I argued in Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU (Transaction Press, 1994; new material was published in the 2001 edition), the Union entertains a vision of liberty that is increasingly libertine: its promotion of radical individualism works to undermine the kind of moral consensus that is a bedrock of free societies. In doing so, it ineluctably increases the power of the state, allowing individual rights to eviscerate the authority of such mediating institutions as the family, school, church, and voluntary associations. The Founding of the ACLU Today the ACLU leadership contends that the organization has been a consistent non-partisan catalyst for freedom since it was founded by ten distinguished Americans: Jane Addams, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Morris Ernst, Crystal Eastman, Helen Keller, Roger Nash Baldwin, Arthur Garfield Hays, Felix Frankfurter, Albert DeSilver, and Walter Nelles.1 This is factually wrong. There was only one founder of the ACLU: Roger Baldwin. Only in recent times has the organization made the case that the other nine co-founded the ACLU. No one has been 1 more unfairly elevated than Crystal Eastman. She is now known as "The ACLU's Underappreciated Founding Mother"; this is what ACLU president Susan N. Herman calls her.2 Even Samuel Walker, the house author of the ACLU's history, admits that it was Baldwin, not Eastman, who founded the ACLU.3 In the spring of 1917, two years after the founding of the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), Baldwin joined its national directing committee (he had joined the local AUAM in St. Louis in 1916). He was given a leading role in launching it, and in his first six months he doubled the size of the organization. Within it, he created a "Civil Liberties Bureau." Internal disagreements among senior officials eventually led to a formal split. On October 1, 1917, Baldwin left to command the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB).4 After spending a year in jail for refusing the draft, Baldwin returned to the NCLB. In 1919, when World War I was over, Baldwin, realizing that the mission of the NCLB was now moot, announced that he would found a new organization, one that was dedicated to the rights of labor. In 1920, the ACLU was born, with Baldwin as its director; he founded three other organizations that same year.5 On the National Executive Committee, later renamed the Board of Directors, were 64 members, all of them associated with the cause of labor. Eastman was one of the sixty-four. But if there was any one of the nine "co-founders" who shared the duties with Baldwin, it was Albert DeSilver (who died at age thirty-six), not Eastman.6 As Walker notes, Eastman withdrew from the fight for civil liberties, due to health issues, two years before Baldwin founded the Union.7 The ACLU's Marxist Beginnings The ACLU was nominally founded to defend free speech rights, but its real interest was the rights of labor. It was so committed to that cause that it never addressed the Volstead Act and the wholesale deprivation of civil liberties that Prohibition fostered. 2 When I interviewed Baldwin in his home in New York City in June 1978, I asked him about this. "We thought the Volstead Act was none of our business since it didn't touch on democratic liberties," he said. "We were wrong. We should have read the Bill of Rights."8 Baldwin pushed the ACLU to the radical fringe of the labor movement, leading Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labor, to accuse him of aiding and abetting revolutionary movements.9 Was Baldwin a Communist? Not in a formal way—he never joined the Party.10 But his philosophical leanings were clearly Marxist, and he was definitely a fellow traveler. No sooner had the Soviet Union been founded when American radicals adopted it as the home of freedom and the enemy of oppression. Emma Goldman, one of the champions of radicalism, couldn't wait to see the promised land when she left on the Buford for Russia in 1920. But her expectations fell flat. In 1922, she wrote a caustic note to Baldwin about "the Bolshevik superstition." The next year, he left for Russia to see for himself; it would be the first of two trips there.11 In 1928, Baldwin wrote a glowing account of what he saw. The title of his book, Liberty Under the Soviets, accurately conveyed his message. He was a true believer, so much so that the abolition of class privilege was far more important to him than civil liberties. Goldman let him have it. "Unless you have become an apologist for dictatorship I cannot understand how you can cry out indignantly against the horrors going on under the capitalistic regime and only whisper your protest against the crimes committed in the name of Revolution and Socialism."12 Baldwin was unfazed. Nothing could stop him from embracing communism. In 1934, he wrote an article for Soviet Russia Today that made plain his sympathies; they were not civil libertarian. "I champion civil liberties as the best non-violent means of building the power on which worKers' rule must be based….When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in 3 the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever….The Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world….It is genuine, and it is the nearest approach to freedom that the worKers have ever achieved."13 Though Baldwin later came to regret this article, in 1935 he told the editor of Harvard's class book, "Communism is the goal."14 The ACLU was so radical that it actively opposed the Wagner Act, or what was formally known as the National Labor Relations Act. It did so because of the belief that the government was a tool of the "propertied class." However, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the law in 1935, the ACLU came under fire by labor leaders for opposing it. It finally yielded and got on board, but not before the Communist Party switched sides.15 Then, in 1939, Baldwin experienced the "biggest shock of my life." That was when he learned of the Nazi-Soviet pact. He told me that the pact meant that "the distinction between Communism and Fascism [was] no longer tenable."16 It also meant that he had to seriously reconsider the propriety of having members of the Communist Party on its board of directors. The ACLU Moves to the Center In 1940, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, one of the ACLU's original directors, was expelled from the Union for her affiliation with the Communist Party. Baldwin authored the resolution to oust her. It was her refusal to resign that forced the vote to expel her. She remained a defiant Communist until the end.17 Throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, the ACLU adopted a more moderate posture, one that sought to balance civil liberties and national security interests. Hitler had to be defeated, and that weighed heavily on Baldwin. Today this chapter in the ACLU's history is a source of embarrassment to its leaders. A more generous view—events changed and that demanded the ACLU change as well—could easily be offered. 4 During World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans. Today the ACLU likes to brag how it challenged this initiative. On its website it lists over twelve highlights in its history. One of them reads, "The ACLU stood almost alone in denouncing the federal government's internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps."18 More mythology. First, these were not concentration camps: the Japanese were allowed to leave the internment camps to attend college.19 No Jews were allowed such privileges in Dachau. Second, the ACLU's position was remarKably different from what the organization claims it was today. It is true that the Northern California affiliate opposed the internment,20 but the national organization took a different position. The official policy of the ACLU read as follows: "The government in our judgment has the constitutional right in the present war to establish military zones and to remove persons, either citizens or aliens, from such zones when their presence may endanger national security, even in the absence of a declaration of martial law."21 I asked Baldwin to explain why the ACLU took this position.